Zahlungen im Stapel anlegen

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

Goes well beyond the annotations by disclosing a rate limit (one call per five seconds), that it writes into real BuchhaltungsButler accounting data, and that no API endpoint exists to reverse it. These are exactly the impact/irreversibility facts an agent needs before a write, and none are derivable from openWorldHint/idempotentHint alone.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

Five short, front-loaded sentences with no filler: what it does, which sibling to use instead, the rate limit, the write target, and the irreversibility. Every sentence carries distinct information.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

The tool is a batch write with an output schema present, so return values need not be explained. Between the description (scope, routing, rate limit, irreversibility) and the 100%-covered nested schema, an agent has everything needed to invoke it correctly.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema description coverage is 100%, so the baseline is 3; the description adds value by directing the agent to the sibling's field documentation and warning that the same field is named account here but payment_account_number in bb_transactions_create. It does not restate per-field syntax, which is acceptable given the schema already carries it.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

States a specific verb and resource (legt bis zu 50 Zahlungen ... an) plus the hard batch ceiling of 50 in one call. It explicitly separates itself from bb_transactions_create, so an agent can pick the right tool without opening either schema.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

Gives an explicit negative routing rule ('für eine einzelne Zahlung dieses Werkzeug nicht nehmen') and names the alternative (bb_transactions_create) whose description explains the fields. The 5-second call limit further constrains when this tool is viable.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.